| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ShamefulShamefulPosted Oct 13, 2008 5:47 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Shameful by kripkenstein Parent article: Beta blockers? (Nature) It's completely legal for you or me to "willfully destroy" their business by building a better, cheaper product (assuming no patent infringement or copyright violations). However, if someone signed a contract with them saying that they would not compete (and assuming that this is a valid contract) it is a different matter.
(Log in to post comments)
Shameful Posted Oct 13, 2008 5:55 UTC (Mon) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
That's a good point, however, the article seems to imply the licensing issue in debate here is reverse-engineering of their product and file format. Even if the licensing agreement prohibits that, I don't see how $10 million/year makes sense, especially since it is "until they stop distributing their program". Seems like a clear attempt to stop competition.
Re: Shameful Posted Oct 15, 2008 6:24 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] Techdirt calls this “felony interference with a business model”.
|
|
||||||||||||